On 25 March 2011 21:42, Dave F. <dave...@madasafish.com> wrote: > With it using the vagueness of 'other' I'm failing to see it's usefulness. > It only tells us what it is not & gives no indication of what it actually > represents. > > The alternative tags of foot, horse etc. are better used as they can be > verified by other means than the OS. In the cases of use I mentioned, > the removal of ORPA did not reduce the accuracy of the ways.
I disagree here. In terms of the access rights, yes (and I'd argue that the foot=yes etc tags should be added regardless of any designation=* tagging). But the fact that it's tagged with ORPA give an indication of where those rights come from (or more specifically that they don't result from the way being one of the standard public rights of way). This information could be quite important to some users, and may also save mappers from re-checking the status. > *If* OS is the only source then I believe it should be be removed for > reasons already stated. Agreed. However, I'd like to see origin of the public use rights recorded somehow, if that information can be verified from a usable source. Many of these ORPA routes are probably public highways of some sort. So tagging along the lines of designation=public_highway or designation=unclassified_highway might be suitable, if that status can be verified. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
